Question

In Gonzales v. Raich, do you think Justice Stevens, for the Opinion of the Court, or Justice O'Connor, in her dissenting opinion gave the better argument on how the Commerce Clause should be interpreted?

Answer 1

In the popular case of Gonzales v. Raich, I think the dissenting opinion of Justice O’Connor, could be given a thought upon. In her opinion, the home grown marijuana for medicinal purposes, was much within the purview of State laws that allowed the citizens to undertake medicinal experiments for the betterment of the society. The Federal law attempted to intrude the sovereignty of the State and thereby making the home-grown marijuana illegal for a citizen. There was, in fact, in her dissenting opinion, no room given for any medical experiment such as that of marijuana, by the Federalism Principles by way of the Commerce clause, in spite of being the Court being in knowledge of the fact that no illicit trade was part of the home-grown Project and that there was an allowance of the same by the State Law. The innovation was thus not getting promoted owing to over intervention of the Federal laws that failed to support the courageous activity of the State that was undertaking a controlled experiment in the laboratory without actually risking the lives of various citizens across the Nation.